Acculturation: An Exploratory Formulation The Social Science Research Council Summer Seminar on Acculturation, 1953 American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 56, No. 6, Part | (Dec., 1954), 973-1000. Stable URL http: flinks.jstor-org/sii sici=0002-7294% 281954 12% 292%3 AS6%3A6%3C9T3%3A AAEFTS%3E: CO%3B2-A American Anthropologist is currently published by American Anthropological Association. ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hp: www stor orglabout/terms.html. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contaet the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hhupswww jstor-org/journals/anthro. html Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the se page of such transmission JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to ercating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @ jstor.org. hupslwww jstor.org/ ‘Tue Apr 19 18:46:37 2005,Acculturation: An Exploratory Formulation ‘The Social Science Research Council Summer Seminar on Acculturation, 1953* HE PHENOMENA of acculturation continue to command wide interest among anthropologists and, to some extent, among sociologists and psy- chologists. Published literature on acculturation is accumulating rapidly (Kees- ing 1953); each year new research and applied programs are being formulated for further study of the phenomena and for possible application of the know|- edge to practical affairs; additional courses on the subject are being added to academic curricula. There appears to be agreement that careful analysis of ac- culturation situations and sequences offers some of our best opportunities for understanding cultural dynamics. Yet it is evident that the collection of em- pirical materials on acculturation proceeds faster than theoretical attempts to order and codify the central concepts which will make the studies yield maxi- ‘mum results. This theoretical lag is undoubtedly related to (a) the unusually rapid expansion and proliferation of empirical studies of acculturation; (6) the shift in emphasis from diachronic, cultural history studies to synchronic func- tional studies, with a corresponding emphasis upon the general concept of structure and a relative neglect of the concept of process; and (¢) the fact that interest in acculturation—in the United States at least—grew out of the earlier concern with salvaging “memory” cultures. This last tendency has fostered a predominant concern with the postcontact ethnography of “receptor” cul- tures, while the “donor” tacitly receives the status of an independent variable. With this estimate as a background, a few actively interested anthropolo- sists proposed to the Social Science Research Council that one of its interuni- versity summer research seminars be devoted to acculturation problems. The seminar was held during July and August of 1953 at Stanford University, and four of the participants—three anthropologists (Siegel, Vogt, and Watson) and ‘one sociologist (Broom)—are the authors of this article. We are especially in- debted to the fifth member of the seminar, Homer Bamett, who contributed importantly to the discussions and to this paper, although he has not joined us in its final preparation. The discussions during the eight-week period ranged widely and informally over the field of culture change. The efforts in this paper follow other attempts to synthesize and codify research and theory in the field of acculturation (Thurnwald 1932; Bateson 1935; Redfield, Linton, and Her- skovits 1936; Herskovits 1938; Mair 1938; Linton 1940; Malinowski 1945; Hallowell 1945; Ramos 1947; Moore 1951; Beals 1953; Wax Ms.). Tt should be emphasized that the paper is intended to be egploratory and suggestive, rather than conclusive and definitive. It takes previous work into account but * Members of the Seminar in alphabetical order: H. G. Barnett, University of Oregon, Leon- ard Broom, University of California (Los Angels), Bernard J. Siegel, Stanford University, Evon Z Vogt, Harsard University, avd James B, Watson, Washingion University (St. Louis), 973.on American Anthropologist [56, 1954 it does not purport to be a review of our state of knowledge with respect to ac- culturation. Instead, it represents the authors’ conception of an orderly ap- proach to the study of cultural change as it is generated by culture contact. During the course of the seminar the authors benefited from consultations with J.B. Casagrande, A. L. Kroeber, G. Bateson, G. D. Spindler, and from the ef- ficient service of Rose Wax, the rapporteur. We also wish to express our gra tude to the Social Science Research Council for the opportunity to engage in the seminar. DELINEATION OF THE PROBLEM For the purposes of the formulation under consideration, acculturation may be defined as culture change that is initiated by the conjunction of two or more autonomous cultural systems. Acculturative change may be the consequence of direct cultural transmission; it may be derived from noncultural causes, such 1s ecological or demographic modifications induced by an impinging culture; it may be delayed, as with internal adjustments following upon the acceptance of alien traits or patterns; or it may be a reactive adaptation of traditional modes of life. Its dynamics can be seen as the selective adaptation of value sys- tems, the processes of integration and differentiation, the generation of de- velopmental sequences, and the operation of role determinants and personality factors. ‘An autonomous cultural system is one which is self-sustaining—that is, it does not need to be maintained by a complementary, reciprocal, subordinate, or other indispensable connection with a second system. Such units are sys- tems because they have their own mutually adjusted and interdependent parts, and they are autonomous because they do not require another system for their continued functioning. An autonomous cultural system is what is usually called “a culture” in the anthropological literature, but the more explicit denotation at once makes the concept more definitive and delimits the incidence of ac- culturation as defined. Thus, cultural changes induced by contacts between ethnic enclaves and their encompassing societies would be definable as accul- turative, whereas those resulting from the interactions of factions, classes, oc- cupational groups, or other specialized categories within a single society would not be so considered. Hence, socialization, urbanization, industrialization, and secularization are not acculturation processes unless they are cross-culturally introduced rather than intraculturally developed phenomena. This delimitation of the field i dictated by strategic considerations. For un- less the culture concept is construed at some broadly inclusive level (viz., @ tribe) the analyst is ultimately reduced to dealing with particularized ‘“‘cul- tures” such as those of families or even individuals. Indeed, the equating of acculturation with the socialization of the individual seems to us to make ex- plicit this methodological error. If attention is not centered on the conjunction ‘of markedly different cultural traditions, the analyst is confronted with effects too microscopic to yield to existing techniques of analysis. For the present it ‘would seem to be more fruitful to concentrate upon the conjunction of cultural differences that are wide and deep,